65
AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/tech@kbin.social
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A federal judge on Friday upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that a piece of art created by AI is not open to protection.

"In March, the copyright office affirmed that most works generated by AI aren’t copyrightable but clarified that AI-assisted materials qualify for protection in certain instances. An application for a work created with the help of AI can support a copyright claim if a human “selected or arranged” it in a “sufficiently creative way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship,” it said."

Thaler was appealing this, and his appeal was denied.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

What would the "sutures" be, in this analogy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    That’s a difficult question to answer and one that will inevitably piss off many. Mandatory detectability is the easiest answer, but the vaguest- ideally with information about used artworks. Severe fines for training on copyrighted works is another route. Vast and continued investment in creating a public domain art library to pull from would ease the issue for artists. I don’t use AI for art and I don’t legislate so I’m not the one to ask, all I can offer is bandaids as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent